It was WaPo that seemed to offer the coda to the arguments of the past three days:
Much can happen between now and the expected ruling this summer, and a far more moderate tone may emerge. Broad statements come more easily in the court’s intense oral arguments than in majority opinions. Between now and the decision, supporters and foes of the law will be able to point to evidence that their side will prevail.
That is exactly what will happen, and the broad statements uttered by both supporters and opponents will likely dominate the media narrative until we know for sure.
"Wednesday the government argued that if the mandate is struck down, the rest of law, which includes some limited cost containment measures and requires insurers to cover young adults under their parents’ policies, should go as well."
Trudy, that's wrong. The government says that what's inseparable are the prohibitions against denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and charging different rates for people in the same age group.
The reason those provisions are not seperable is that without the mandate, insurers won't gain enough new customers to pool the costs of meeting those regulations.
The government says the rest of the law should stand. You're describing the plaintiff's position.
#1 Posted by Weldon Berger, CJR on Thu 29 Mar 2012 at 05:23 PM
Mr. Berger is absolutely correct in his characterization of the government's position. Moreover, Justice Sotomayor's position should be stated more clearly: that if the mandate is deemed unconstitutional, it alone should be stricken. If the Court were to do otherwise, it would be encroaching on the legislative power of Congress. This is precisely the approach Chief Justice Roberts has advocated in numerous writings and speeches on the issue of "severability". It also has the weight of precedent behind it, including the weightiest of them all, Marbury v. Madison.
#2 Posted by S Bayer, CJR on Fri 30 Mar 2012 at 03:37 AM
Thanks for the clarification.
#3 Posted by Trudy Lieberman, CJR on Fri 30 Mar 2012 at 08:16 AM
I think we are now seeing what a huge mistake it was to substitute a system that could not possibly work (Obamacare, which has a built in self destruct feature, adverse selection.)
Even if they keep the mandate, it cannot work, because the cost for the millions of self employed not in group plans will still be prohibitive.
Remember, the folks who dont have jobs who still want to buy insurance will be the sicker ones, but they will not be able to afford quality coverage- or rather I should explain they will not be able to afford *enough* coverage to make it possible for them to KEEP their insurance WHEN they get sick!
Then the government STILL gets the bill, after they spend down all their assets, because they will be dumped. Its DESIGNED that way.
We really can't win with the health insurance model. They were years ahead of us on this one.
The only way we can afford modern healthcare and catch up with the other developed nations is single payer, paid for by everyone's taxes, everybody in, nobody out.
Which means no more health insurance as we know it now. (it would have to be illegal to give some people more services than others as we do here) so, no tiers. No tears, either. Because people would get care earlier, preventing a lot of illness that currently ends up being much more expensive because its catch up care.
We should look at the Scandanavian countries and France, in particular, for how to do it. They have far better outcomes than we do right now.
We would need to renegotiate some of our WTO committments, GATS in particular.
#4 Posted by Walt, CJR on Mon 2 Apr 2012 at 07:25 PM
The legislative branch is too corporate controlled now to ever fix healthcare. The judiciary is the only branch that could do it. They don't need that re-election cash. This country's future is riding on this. We cannot do this the parties ways. Neither of them have any will to fix this.The Dems, especially, as its their way to enslave the desperate and increasingly sick voters by making promises they know they cannot fulfill. But doing nothing (the GOP solution) is even more murderous. At least the Dems propose to help the very poor (while throwing the middle class to the lions) (Of course, any poor folk who manage to keep their insurance during illness will be under scrutiny for cheating by hiding income. Criminalizing the poor is a popular way to discourage "welfare"- and the cost will be huge if its even adequate care, (unlikely) because poor people are sicker.)
SCOTUS could save our democracy from a revolution.
#5 Posted by Walt, CJR on Tue 3 Apr 2012 at 10:48 AM